PTI talked about the NHL considering expansion. Would it be a good idea? Or should they do just the opposite, and contract a few teams?
2007-06-20 11:40:07 · 17 answers · asked by mikea_va 6 in Sports ➔ Hockey
PTI does not know a thing about hockey. They know more about darts, bowling and lawn mower racing than they do about hockey. If anything, the NHL needs to detract a few teams. This is a very, very hard process and most likely will not happen. The talent pool in the NHL is way to watered-down. They need to bring the teams to where people are actually going to watch them. I just don't understand how they can sell tickets in the South for 10-15 bucks and not get anyone to go. In Winnipeg, that would be a sellout. Nuff Said.
2007-06-20 12:00:36 · answer #1 · answered by josh1wk 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think there are a few candidates that could be moved to better markets than they currently play in now. I don't think the NHL wants much to do with contracting teams. They want to "help the game grow" they say, and by doing that it would represent a move in the wrong direction. If they were to expand, I couldn't see more than 2 teams joining. Then they could shuffle divisions to an NFL-esque fashion. 4 divisions of 4 teams in each in both conferences. Total 32 teams. All four division winners get a playoff spot (not ranked 1-4 though but still assured a spot) plus the next 4 highest. Still have 8 from each conf. go to postseason. Just a thought if the NHL chose that route. Plus that way the inter-divisional games could make up less of their schedules, only have 3 other teams involved.
2007-06-20 18:55:07 · answer #2 · answered by Now I'm Wondering 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on your view, Hockey has some of the most defensive and picky fans of any sport. They love their team(s) and hate all or any others. We're regional (East or West) and don't like change. Some say we have too many teams, die hards think there should only be 6 but who would fund them? How would they keep interest? You would be interested, great...but what do they care? The players need a reason to play in order to make it a career, the owners need a reason to invest money, and the sport needs advertisement and sales to keep up operations.
Don't sit there with your heads up your a.sses and say they have too many teams as it is, or it's not needed. If it can be afforded, it will bring people into hockey, and it will give increased coverage then I'm all for it.
And here's a perspective no one likes, but is true. Expansion would bring in more money. The owners are all about money. Everyone here hates on Bettman (me included) but there is one thing he doesn't do wrong....he gets the owners their money. And without owners you have no team. It's sad, but it's how it is...look at all other sports. Hockey fans like to think we are different, and we are, but operations work the same regardless. It's all about the $$$.
2007-06-20 19:59:06 · answer #3 · answered by J R 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Like others have said the talent pool is watered down. Though I'd actually like to see them reduce the number of teams which isn't likely to happen. If anything some teams may move to different markets. They should at least let the sport stabilize and let it grow (or not). They expanded much too quickly in the past 20 years and the talent pool hasn't grown with it.
2007-06-21 02:16:55 · answer #4 · answered by plumerjr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a matter of should, it's a matter of when..........Bill Daly told reporters during the Stanley Cup final that the NHL had received and was listening to overtures from Jerry Bruckheimer and a group of investors to put a team in Las Vegas, and they were looking at two submissions to put a team in Kansas City. He also noted that this was 2-3 years away, and that putting two teams in those locales would require re-alignment.
2007-06-20 22:33:45 · answer #5 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do the opposite. Cut it down to 24 teams.
2007-06-20 19:15:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I say stay at 30 teams and let the league stabilize before you consider expansion. If teams want to relocate, so be it - bring hockey to KC!
2007-06-21 00:37:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here are some teams that need to go: Islanders, Thrashers, Predators, Hurricanes, Capitals & Panthers.
NONE of these teams draw people. Get rid of them & let all the players become free agents.
If any teams need to move, then they need to move up North. I'm tired of seein pools of water on the ice during the playoffs b/c of the hot climates most of these teams are in.
2007-06-21 09:14:08 · answer #8 · answered by Thomas 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes, but not in europe, in las vegas and kansas city, thats where the next nhl teams will be if any
2007-06-20 20:33:04 · answer #9 · answered by #1Pens Fan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it happens, it'll just be existing teams moving. Predators are likely to be moved but I hope someone from the south moves to K.C.
2007-06-20 18:49:16 · answer #10 · answered by Devsfan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋